Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise tonight to oppose the Permanent Wall Street Bailout and Increase Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009. If Congress had to abide by the truth-in- advertising laws that they impose on the rest of the Nation, surely this would be the official title of, indeed, this 1,279-page piece of legislation.

Madam Chairman, it is section 1609(n), for those who may have written the legislation and forgotten it, that creates a permanent $200 billion bailout fund. To paraphrase a line from the famous Kevin Costner movie ``Field of Dreams,'' if you build it, they will come. The only reason to create a Wall Street bailout fund is to bail out Wall Street permanently.

Now, the Democrats claim, Madam Chairman, that the bailout fund will not be paid for by taxpayers; but, Madam Chairman, these are the very same people who told us that the GSEs, the government sponsored enterprises, would never, never receive a dime of taxpayer money. And I guess, in a sense, they were literally correct. Instead, it's $1 trillion, $1 trillion of taxpayer money now committed to the failed government-sponsored enterprises.

These are the very same people who told us that, hey, don't worry about the Social Security trust fund; it'll get paid back. Medicare is financially sound. The National Federal Flood Insurance Program will never need a taxpayer infusion.

Madam Chairman, they were wrong then and they are wrong now. Besides creating a permanent Wall Street bailout fund, Madam Chairman, this bill represents the fourth piece of the Democrats' failing economic agenda. First was the $1 trillion stimulus, next the $600 billion national energy tax. After that, the $1 trillion government takeover of our health care plan.

Now, we all remember the stimulus plan. The President told us if it was enacted that unemployment would never rise above 8 percent. Yet our unemployment rate is at double digits, the worst in a generation; and the legislation before us will cause even more job losses. In sections 4301, 4304, 4308, it will do this by empowering an unelected czar to unilaterally--give the power to unilaterally ban and ration consumer credit products, and then finance itself through hidden taxes on consumer credit and successful American companies.

You heard the study alluded to earlier: interest rates paid by consumers would rise 1\1/2\ percent; new jobs would be reduced by almost 5 percent in our economy. More jobs would be lost, Madam Chairman, under the bailout authority which assesses $150 billion of taxes on large financial firms.

Now, maybe those on the other side of the aisle wish to engage in the myth that somehow that won't be passed on to consumers, that somehow this won't impact credit lines at small businesses; but they are wrong. Increased interest rates. Increased fees, fewer loans to small businesses. Madam Chairman, once again, more jobs will be lost under the Permanent Wall Street Bailout and Increase Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009. The United States Chamber of Commerce has said that if this act is passed, it would have a significant adverse effect on small businesses by restricting their access to credit. Some would lose credit altogether.

Madam Chairman, I talk to a lot of good community bankers in my part of Texas. I have heard the chairman allude to the ICBA, and I certainly respect those who have Washington ZIP codes. Frankly, I respect those who have Texas ZIP codes a little bit more. I talked to a man who helps build Palestine, Texas, Kev Williams, East Texas National Bank. And he said, Congressman, if I have more compliance costs and the Federal Government in going to limit the types of customized credit products I can offer, we will lose jobs in Anderson County, Texas, that I have the privilege of representing in Congress.

I heard from a small businessman in my district, from Jacksonville, Texas, ``As a small businessman the restriction on credit may very well mean the end of my company.'' Madam Chairman, why should we pass any legislation that will harm the ability of small businesses to access credit in the midst of a credit contraction? After 3.6 million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs since President Obama took office, I ask my Democratic colleagues, how many more jobs have to be lost? How many more?

And, Madam Chairman, next the government takeover. Again, after proposing the $600 billion tax on our energy sector, a $1 trillion takeover of our health care system, the Democrats now bring us the next chapter in the narrative, and that is the takeover of huge portions of our consumer credit and finance markets. They will create a huge new, complex government bureaucracy and grant it sweeping draconian powers.

Section 1104 will allow it to break up successful companies like Dell Computer or American Airlines. Section 204 and 4306 will allow it to dictate the pay structure, all the way down to a bank teller in east Texas making $25,000 a year.

Madam Chairman, section 4301 will allow it to decide, again, which credit cards, which home mortgages, and which car loans we are allowed to receive, and the list goes on and on and on. Madam Chairman, what this really leads us to is a bailout and job loss bill where the big get bigger, the small get smaller, the taxpayer gets poorer and the economy gets more political.

Madam Chairman, what does a political economy look like? Well, we've seen it. We've seen it in the government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where we give them these monopoly powers. They're allowed to grow these profits, but then they do a deal with Congress, oh, but you have to have an affordable housing mission. You have to have this political mission. And $1 trillion of taxpayer liability exposure later, we know how that turned out. That's what a political economy is about.

How about GM and Chrysler? When they went bankrupt, all of a sudden, allies of the administration, the United Auto Workers, they end up with a sweetheart deal. And Chrysler, senior secured creditors received 29 cents on the dollars; but the United Auto Workers received 43 cents on the dollar, and they ended up owning the company. How convenient. That's what a political economy looks like.

And look at individual Members of Congress, including the distinguished chairman of this committee. From The Wall Street Journal, dated June 5, 2009, quote, ``The latest self-appointed car czar is Massachusetts' own Barney Frank, who intervened this week to save a GM distribution center in Norton, Massachusetts. The warehouse, which employs some 90 people, was slated for closure by the end of the year under GM's restructuring plan. But Mr. Frank put in a call to GM's CEO, Fritz Henderson, and secured a new lease on life for the facility.'' Now, I respect our chairman. I'm not here to suggest----

I know that the distinguished chairman relishes this. And, again, I'm not here to suggest that the activity is illegal, was immoral, was even fattening. I'm here to suggest it is what a political economy is all about. I would suggest anyone else besides the chairman of the Financial Services Committee making that telephone call, that facility wouldn't be open today. Under this bill, Madam Chairman, Americans' job security will depend less on how well you perform your job at home and more upon who you know in Washington.

That is what the political economy is all about.

This bill represents an assault on the fundamental economic liberties of the American citizen. You want a home mortgage, you now have to get the approval of the Federal Government. You want to offer a credit product? The Federal Government. If you build a successful business, it can be torn down unless you go to the Federal Government on bended knee.

Fewer jobs, more bailouts, more government control, less personal freedom. It is time to reject this bill.

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee and one of the true champions of economic liberty in Congress, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

If the gentleman would just yield on that one point, I would say the results were seen immediately, and that is an additional 3.6 million of our countrymen lost their jobs under this program.

I yield back to the gentleman.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Before yielding to the other gentleman from Texas, I will yield myself 1 minute.

I heard the gentleman from North Carolina in a spate of candor say he didn't know what the solution was. I do know what the solution is. It's the Republican substitute. I would commend the gentleman to read it. It ends bailouts. Your bill will increase bailouts. It reforms the Federal Reserve.

Your bill increases the powers of the Federal Reserve. This bill protects consumer rights. Your bill constricts consumer rights.

Your bill was stone-cold silent with respect to the government- sponsored

enterprises, but now you protect them. Clearly the GSEs are too big to fail.

Our bill goes to the source of the problem. If the gentleman needs to know what the solution is, I would be happy to provide him with a copy of the Republican substitute.

It is now my privilege, Madam Chair, to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chair, might I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, what we have before us is the ``Perpetual Wall Street Bailout and Increased Job Losses Through Credit Rationing Act of 2009.''

No matter how much our friends on the other side of the aisle wish to deny it, the only reason to create a bailout fund is to bail someone out. The American people are sick and tired of paying for the bailouts.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we're not really going to use this bailout fund, which kind of begs the question: Why are you creating it in the first place? Well, it's just going to be used for wind-down cost. Well, in bankruptcy, typically you use the assets of the bankrupt company to do that. So this $150 billion plus the $50 billion line of credit from the Treasury, what's the $200 billion being used for? Well, ultimately it's going to be used to bail out other Wall Street parties, the creditors, the shareholders, the counterparties, just like what was done in AIG.

Now, again the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee says, Well, our bailout fund is like a death penalty. Well, it may be a death penalty, but the death sentence has been commuted for up to 3 years. And, by the way, as it's commuted, just like in the AIG bailout, Societe Generale could walk away with $16.5 billion, a French concern, like they did in AIG. Goldman Sachs could walk away with $14 billion in the bailout like they did in AIG. Merrill Lynch could walk away with $6.2 billion. Deutsche Bank, a German concern, could walk away with $8.5 billion. UBS, a Swiss concern, could walk away with $3.8 billion. These are the counterparties on credit default swaps to AIG, and their legislation would replicate it, Madam Chair.

There's nothing in their legislation that would prevent the entire AIG fiasco from repeating itself, and, if anything, they would triple it, up to 3 years, up to 3 years of bailout authority there.

So not only is the death sentence commuted in their so-called bailout fund, but not unlike the GM and Chrysler cases, we could have a Lazarus-like resurrection. Not unlike old GM and old Chrysler, well, you flip a switch and all of a sudden you take care of your political allies, the United Auto Workers, and you've got new GM and you've got new Chrysler, and all of a sudden they just keep on trucking along. So it's an interesting metaphor to call this a death penalty. What it is is it is a bailout.

Here we all are, Madam Chair, at a very tough time in our Nation's economy and 3.6 million of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs since the President told us if we passed his plan, his government stimulus plan, we'd only have 8 percent unemployment. Still, we know we have 10 percent unemployment. And yet here we have a piece of legislation that's ultimate impact is to make credit more expensive, less available when small businesses are losing jobs by the tens of thousands and thousands. Why, in the middle of one of the great credit contractions in our Nation's economy, would you want to make credit more expensive and less available? It's beyond me, Madam Chair. It is beyond me.

Again, my fear is that under this type of legislation the big will get bigger. This is again Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, politically favorite firms given a political mission and that blows up. Now, again maybe the Merrill Lynches and the UBSs are taken care of. The school teachers in Mesquite, Texas, they're not taken care of under this legislation. They end up paying for the bailout in this political economy. The big will get bigger and they will be given a political mission. Again, your job will depend not so much on what you do at home but who you know in Washington.

One of the great free market economists of our time, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said, ``Sooner or later, and perhaps sooner than many of us expect, an ever bigger government would destroy prosperity that we owe to the free market and the human freedom proclaimed so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence.''

That moment is here, and we must vote for freedom and against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we all know the sad news that under this administration and this Congress, our Nation has the worst, the worst unemployment rate in a generation. Over 3\1/2\ million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs since President Obama has come into office.

So what have our friends on the other side of the aisle tried to do? Well, they have tried to spend their way into job creation with a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan, a $410 billion omnibus spending plan, and a threatened trillion dollar takeover of our health care system plan. Well, that didn't get us any jobs.

So they have tried to borrow their way into prosperity. Now we have the first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history, a spending plan to triple, triple the national debt in the next 10 years.

So borrowing didn't work. Spending didn't work.

So here's the latest plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's have a perpetual plan to tax people when they die. Maybe that will create jobs in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. As the gentleman from Texas said, it is time to put the death tax to death. People have already paid. We will not start new businesses when you tax small businesses. It's time to get rid of the death tax once and for all.

It's an unfair tax. It ought to be an illegal tax.

Mr. Speaker, since the President and the Democrats took control of Congress, they have passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus plan, a $410 billion omnibus spending plan, they have passed appropriations bills that have increased spending 10, 20, 30 percent. They passed our first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history. They passed a budget that will triple--triple--the national debt in the next 10 years. And now today, a $1.3 trillion government takeover of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve the health of a nation by bankrupting its children. There are a trillion reasons, a trillion reasons, to defeat this government takeover of our health care system. Let me give you one more: government control is the rationing of our health care.

Think about your loved ones. Think about your constituents. Think about your fellow countrymen. Reject this trillion-dollar takeover of our government health care.

Mr. Speaker, government-run health care is government-rationed health care. Today in America when our loved ones need health care, they wait hours, maybe days; but in Britain and Canada, they wait weeks, months, perhaps even a year.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been age 5, I have gone fishing with my father. Those are moments I treasure. But 15 years ago he went to see his doctor about a chest pain; 48 hours later, he had triple bypass surgery. And guess what? At age 81, we are still fishing. But had he been in Britain, had he been in Canada, there might never have been another fishing trip. My children might have never known their grandfather because health care delayed is health care denied.

Government-rationed health care will mean our loved ones will suffer. They will languish, and perhaps even perish. We should never support a children-bankrupting, health care-rationing, freedom-crushing $1 trillion government takeover of our health care system.

Let's support the Republican plan to give the American people the health care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford.

Madam Speaker, today I recognize Kaufman County Veterans for their tremendous work in procuring a replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.

The memorial wall, which will be permanently located at the Kaufman County Veterans Memorial Park, will be a lasting tribute to those who not only served in Vietnam, but to all the veterans of Kaufman County.

As we prepare for Veterans Day on November 11th, let us remember those throughout our nation's history who have sacrificed so much so that we may be free. Freedom is not free; it comes at an incredible cost. Veterans and their families, more than any other group of Americans, understand that cost.

President Coolidge once said, ``A nation which forgets its defenders, will itself soon be forgotten.'' This park and wall in Kaufman, Texas, will forever be a reminder of the sacrifices our fellow Americans and their families endured so that we may enjoy the freedoms that have made our country so great.

As the Congressman of the Fifth District, I would like to thank everyone who played a role in building the Kaufman County Veterans Memorial Park and bringing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall to Kaufman County.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to recognize the Sunnyvale Pecan Harvest Festival and the first ever Sunnyvale Pecan Queen.

The Sunnyvale Pecan Harvest Festival was a vision of Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce Chairman Terry Reid and has been brought to fruition through her tremendous efforts, as well as that of other Chamber members, local businesses and the Town of Sunnyvale. This festival is the first of its kind in Sunnyvale and is sure to be a popular community event for years to come.

A festival would not be complete without a Queen, and Sunnyvale has chosen a wonderful lady to serve as the first ever ``Pecan Queen.'' Ms. Leona Fischer has been a resident of Sunnyvale for more than 40 years and continues to contribute to her community as much today as she did when she first moved there. As the director of the Douglas and Michael Kindergarten and Day School, Ms. Fischer would bring the children attending the school out to her property in Sunnyvale for camping, swimming and fishing. When she moved to Sunnyvale permanently, Ms. Fischer and her husband started antique and real estate businesses and continued to contribute to their community.

While her antique shop has since closed, Ms. Fischer can still be seen around Sunnyvale, running her real estate business. Ms. Fischer makes towns like Sunnyvale a great place to live and work, and I am proud to represent Ms. Fischer and congratulate her on this well- deserved honor.

With a Classic Custom Car and Truck show, live music performances-- including a special guest appearance by Grammy winner Art Greenhaw and the awarding of the ``Beth Bassett Music Achievement Award''--the baking and photo contests and the food and shopping opportunities, the First Annual Sunnyvale Pecan Harvest Festival is sure to be an outstanding event for the families of Sunnyvale.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am privileged to recognize Terry Reid, Leona Fischer, the Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce and the town of Sunnyvale for all their hard work and dedication. I wish them great success.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is ever a good time to enact a bad law. And unfortunately, although there are some good provisions in the underlying credit card legislation, ultimately many of us predicted that if it passed, credit would become more expensive and less available to millions of Americans, and that's exactly what we see.

Now, the good part of the bill is, clearly, there have been misleading and deceptive practices by some credit card companies. We need to have better disclosure, more effective disclosure so people understand the credit relationships in which they enter. But, Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a huge credit contraction that's taking place today; jobs are being lost and people are having trouble accessing credit for their personal lives and for small businesses. Unfortunately, ultimately this underlying legislation on which one of three effective dates is moved up--or two of the three effective dates are moved up by the bill that is before us--will essentially exacerbate that trend. In many respects, Mr. Chairman, I hate to say I told you so, but we told you so. And so, again, all we're going to do is make a bad situation worse.

Already we have seen, for example, a recent article in USA Today, let me quote from it, October 23, ``Curtis Arnold, founder of creditratings.com, said he expected credit card issuers to raise annual fees after the legislation was enacted.'' Sure enough, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we see.

Let me quote from The Wall Street Journal. ``Other issuers, such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Card Services, and Discover, recently converted customer fixed rates to variable ones.''

New York Times, ``Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers''--which is exactly what the underlying legislation did, Mr. Chairman. Let me continue on--``who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for the lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.''

So now we also find out--again, from USA Today--that starting next year Bank of America will charge a number of customers an annual fee ranging from $29 to $99. We see that, in the same article from USA Today, Citigroup has started charging annual fees to cardholders.

And so, again, Mr. Chairman, we have the testimony. Many of us predicted this. As I said way back in March, make no mistake about it, if this bill passes, it's going to be a lot harder for people to access the credit they need to pay their bills, cover medical emergencies, or finance large purchases.

And so all over America people are getting these notices in the mail--including the Hensarling family of Dallas, Texas, where all of a sudden I've seen our own interest rates skyrocket from 15 percent to 23 percent. And with very few exceptions, my wife and I pay our balance in full at the end of the month. It's the half of America that pays their bills on time, in full that are now having to subsidize those who don't through an act of Congress.

So I think we all agree, nobody likes what's happening in America, but the question is, who's responsible? I believe this underlying piece of legislation is exacerbating a huge credit contraction that's already taking place in the economy.

And, Mr. Chairman, it just couldn't come at a worse time. I mean, as we know, apparently on Friday or Saturday this body will vote on a huge government takeover of our health care bill which could cost easily, even according to CBO, over $1 trillion that ultimately has to be paid for by the American people.

We've seen estimates again that premiums will rise, particularly for young, healthy people, young, healthy people who may be getting these notices in the mail today that all of a sudden maybe their credit cards have been yanked and maybe their interest rates have gone up. At the same time when we are staring in the face of an over $1 trillion health care bill, a bill that could impose a 2.5 percent penalty, again, on young people who may not be able to afford insurance, but they could be penalized 2.5 percent. Well, if you take away their credit cards, how are they going to be able to pay the 2.5 percent tax if they don't buy the government improved health insurance?

Mr. Chairman, how about small businesses? If small businesses find that their credit cards have their interest rates skyrocket or taken away, how are they going to be able to pay the 8 percent pay-or-play tax which is in the Pelosi government takeover of health care bill?

How about the other surcharge that would go to a number of small businesses, supposedly raising half a trillion dollars? Again, we know a lot of small businesses access credit through credit cards. So if we take an underlying bad bill that's exacerbating a credit crunch and all we do is accelerate the effective date, I mean, how, again, are tens of thousands of small businesses going to be able to pay the 8 percent new pay-or-play tax in the Pelosi takeover of our health care system bill?

How about the 2.5 percent medical device tax, or the 2.5 percent what some are calling the ``wheelchair tax''? Again, a number of our seniors rely on credit cards. Now they have Medigap policies. They need those credit cards for medical expenses, especially if the majority is about to impose a 2.5 percent wheelchair tax upon the American people.

Why are we going to pass a bill, again, in the middle of a huge credit contraction that is only going to exacerbate the matter, make matters worse, take away credit cards, make interest rates go up, make credit less available and more expensive at a time when we are threatened with this $1 trillion government takeover of health care legislation?

Again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that there is at least one good part of the legislation, which is that we do need effective disclosure and that we need competitive markets. But when you start taking away the ability of companies to price for risk, the people who do it right end up bailing out a number of people who don't, and those who don't--and for some of whom it may not be through any fault of their own--find that they no longer have credit opportunities at a time when many are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they don't buy the government-improved health insurance. They are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they need a wheeled chair, maybe even a replacement hip. I suppose that's also defined as a ``medical device'' under the Pelosi government takeover of our health care system legislation. Small businesses face the 8 percent pay-or-play tax.

Again, even if you thought that the underlying legislation was good, how could the timing not be worse?

If you were to ask the American people, number one, if those who pay their bills on time shouldn't be punished for those who don't, and of those who don't, if they had a choice of paying a higher interest rate or of having their credit cards taken away from them, my guess is a number of them would choose the higher interest rate.

But Congress has taken that decision away from them by enacting the underlying bill, if we choose to enact this bill, which will simply hasten what is already a bad process which is making credit less available and more expensive to thousands of small businesses and to millions of Americans as we're facing a government takeover of our health care system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in order to help equalize the time, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Chairman, I assume the chairman of the full committee has the right to close?

The chairman having said he has no other speakers, in that case, I will close for our side.

Again, we have no great pleasure in saying ``I told you so,'' but I think it is important before this body decides to accelerate a problem that is exacerbated by this body, they should take full import of their actions and the consequences.

As I said back in June, we must remember that every restriction, every limit, every regulation, has a high probability of making credit less accessible, less affordable and more costly, and, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we see today.

In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, we read, In the past 2 years, credit card lines have been cut by over $1.25 trillion. During the same time, 10 percent of all credit card accounts have been canceled.

Again, we know, Mr. Chairman, that our constituents are feeling this pain as they get these notices in the mail. Let me go back to the article: According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, small business lending is down 3 percent, or $113 billion, from fourth quarter 2008.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman keeping me informed.

Again, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is what I believe to be a number of unintended consequences that have taken place in this legislation. We were warned about this.

We heard from, for example, the ABA, who testified at the committee back in March, Restrictions on repricing higher risk accounts means two things. Number one, that higher risk customers will likely see less credit available to them; and, two, since the higher risk customers do not bear the full cost of the risk they pose, lower risk customers will bear some of the added cost.

We heard back in December of 2008 from Oliver Ireland of the Morrison and Forester law firm: The effects of this are going to be pretty severe. People are going to see either some combination of rising prices or a reduction in the availability of credit by either cutting lines or simply not making credit available.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we have been warned. Julie Williams, chief counsel for the OCC, who testified before our committee back in April of 2008: The risk mitigation tools used by credit card lenders to address changes in the credit risk profile of customers may include freezing or reducing credit lines, closing accounts, shortening account expiration dates and repricing for outstanding balances on the account. I could go on and on.

We have been warned, Mr. Chairman. We see it happening. We hear the anecdotal evidence. We see the statistical evidence. Again, I fear that although there are some good aspects of the legislation, that ultimately, ultimately, in the midst of a huge credit contraction, that what we will see is credit become even less available and more expensive, at a time when many of our constituents need it most.

Again, this has to be put into the context of the larger legislation that this body will consider this week, according to the Speaker of the House, and that is the government takeover of our health care system.

We know that on page 297, section 501 of that bill, there is a 2.5 percent tax imposed on all individuals who do not purchase the government-approved health insurance, which clearly applies to people making less than a quarter million dollars a year, which seems to contravene a campaign commitment that was made by our President.

We also see that there are new taxes on medical devices, a 2.5 percent excise tax. Again, many call this the wheelchair tax. But as our constituents are finding it more and more difficult to access credit cards, when they are having their credit cards cancelled, when they are seeing their interest rates rise, how are they going to be able to pay the 2.5 percent medical device tax in this $1 trillion piece of legislation?

Mr. Chairman, I hear from my constituents. I hear from the Farmer family of Athens who wrote to me once, Dear Congressman, more than once we have put medical bills on our credit cards. Two years ago, my middle son had to have cervical surgery. I split the cost of the surgery, doctors and hospital. It took my husband and me about a year to pay off that particular debt, but we did it at a low rate of interest since our credit is good. I am just thankful for having the means to help my son.

Now, what do I go back and tell the Farmer family of Athens? Well, Congress decided to pass a piece of legislation; that although your credit is good, you are going to have to start paying more for people whose credit isn't good. The next time you have a medical emergency or challenge in your family, I don't know if that credit card will be there for you.

That is a tragedy, Mr. Chairman, as, again, we continue to have this huge credit contraction. And, again, when we are looking at this $1 trillion government takeover of our health care legislation that on page 336, section 551, imposes a half a trillion dollar surcharge, supposedly just on the wealthy, but if you read the fine print what you figure out is that half of that is going to be paid by small businesses. So you could have a $534 billion surtax imposed in this government takeover of health care legislation, and as you impose this, again, how is small business going to be able to afford to pay this surcharge if on their credit cards their interest rates continue to rise and their availability to access credit continues to erode? I don't understand it.

Then the more visible tax on small business, page 313, section 512 of the government takeover of health care bill imposes an 8 percent tax on employers who can't afford to purchase the government-approved health insurance. Now, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, such a mandate could cost 1.6 million jobs in the next 5 years. So, if you lose your job and we are making credit more expensive and less available, Mr. Chairman, I just ask the question, how is this supposed to improve the Nation's health care?

So we have to take a look at the underlying credit card legislation and how it is going to impact our constituents as we go forward, perhaps on Friday or Saturday, to vote on this other legislation.

We also know, Mr. Chairman, that in the government takeover of our health care bill, that there are at least 43 new entitlement programs that are either created, expanded or extended in the bill.

Now, is somebody going to tell me that doesn't make health care more expensive? And if it makes health care more expensive, how are Americans who are losing their credit cards supposed to pay for the $1 trillion takeover of our health care system?

In addition, there are 111 new offices, bureaus, commissions, programs and bureaucracies that the bill will put between Americans and their doctors. Are you going to tell me, besides rationing health care, that somehow that is going to make health care less expensive? I don't believe so.

If it doesn't make health care less expensive, and I haven't found anybody to come to this floor to tell me that this 1,990-page bill costing the American people over $1 trillion is somehow going to make their health care less expensive, so if it doesn't make their health care less expensive, why would we want to support legislation that, again, has the impact and effect of taking away millions of Americans' credit cards or artificially raising their interest rates? I don't get it.

Mr. Chairman, in this $1 trillion government takeover of our health care system bill, we have 3,425 uses of the word ``shall'' representing new duties, new obligations, new mandates on individuals, businesses and States, which, oh, by the way, is double the number that we saw in the last iteration of the government takeover of our health care system bill.

Okay. So if we have 3,425 different mandates in this bill, is that somehow going to make our health care less expensive? I don't believe that. I don't believe the American people believe that. And, again, Mr. Chairman, if it doesn't make our health care less expensive at a time when our Nation has just achieved its first $1 trillion deficit in our history, when this Congress has enacted a spending plan that will triple, triple the national debt in the next 10 years, that is even before the $1 trillion government takeover of our health care bill comes to the floor, how can we pass a piece of legislation making credit less available and more expensive?

I urge rejection of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, certainly we had a spirited debate on the underlying legislation. I do want to thank the chairman for his efforts for allowing this particular amendment to be made in order. I have always feared that on a number of pieces of legislation that Congress enacts that it is always fraught with unintended consequences. I believe I stumbled across one of those unintended consequences.

I believe it was last week, perhaps the week before, that I was contacted by one of my constituents who had received a credit card offer in the mail that offered him a better interest rate than the interest rate his current credit card offered; but because of a number of other provisions, he wanted to keep his current credit card.

So he called his credit card company and said, Would you match this other deal on the interest rate? I want to stay with you, but will you match this interest rate? He was told by whatever voice was on the other end of the 1-800 number, We would like to match your interest rate, and we will match your interest rate, but we cannot do it for 45 days under a law recently enacted by Congress.

Now, I certainly don't believe that was the intent of the majority, but clearly the language in the underlying bill is being interpreted by some credit card companies to prevent them from lowering rates or lowering fees without a 45-day notice. Again, I do not believe that was the intention of the majority, and they may have written their bill thinking they had taken care of that. But, clearly, the language is sufficiently ambiguous for some companies that they do not feel that they can actually lower interest rates or lower fees or cancel fees or do something that almost every single individual in this body would interpret as only, only benefiting the consumer.

So, Mr. Chairman, my simple amendment would provide a clarification that no provision in the subsection shall be construed as preventing any creditor from putting any reduction in an annual percentage rate, any decrease or elimination of any fee imposed on any consumer or any significant change in terms solely or primarily for the benefit of the consumer into effect immediately.

So, again, what I believe the majority was trying to do would be preserved, and I think what they were trying not to do and, that is, certainly I do not believe it is their intent to have consumers wait for 45 days for lower interest rates. Again, I grant you, in this economic environment, it is not a common occurrence, but apparently it does occur or this constituent wouldn't have called me in the first place.

So I believe it is a simple amendment. Again, I hope it takes care of an unintended consequence. I fear there are many other unintended consequences, but this is one that it would take care of, and I would certainly urge all Members of the body to adopt the amendment.

Again, I thank the chairman for making sure that this particular amendment was made in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although as I seek to understand the amendment, I am not completely certain that I am in opposition.

I will yield myself as much time as I may consume.

It appears that if a credit card issuer does not increase an annual percentage rate fee or finance charge applicable to any existing or future balance, it need not comply. With the bill's requirements, payments above the minimum will be allocated first to that balance until February of 2010. So I guess there is a carve-out for credit card issuers who do not increase annual percentage rates. I suppose at the margins it is good to give more choices instead of fewer choices. Whether or not this results, again, in some people having to pay even more in fees, maybe an annual fee, I don't know the answer to that question. I suppose I will urge my colleagues to adopt this.

But again, all of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, has to be put in the context of the legislation that this body will consider this Friday or Saturday and that is the 1,990-page government takeover of our health care system bill. And I think that on every single piece of legislation that we consider in this body prior to that time, we have to ask the question, If our constituents are going to be looking at having to pay for a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care legislation, is any particular amendment going to make our constituents have a greater ability or a lesser ability to pay for that?

I am thinking specifically right now of all the seniors across America, particularly those in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor and privilege of representing, who will see their Medicare Advantage plans cut by $150 billion under the government-takeover-of-health-care plan. Now, if so, on the health care benefits they're receiving under their Medicare Advantage plan that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will cut $150 billion from Medicare Advantage, will the seniors in the Fifth Congressional District, will they still have access to credit cards, for example, that help them fill the gap to, number one, help pay for the trillion- dollar health care bill and, on the other hand, as $150 billion is taken away from those who receive Medicare Advantage, particularly those in rural areas?

In representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, I represent a lot of rural America. So it's a little unclear to me whether the underlying amendment is going to make it easier for seniors to keep those credit cards or not. I believe perhaps at the margin

it does; and because of that, I will urge my colleagues to adopt this.

Again, all of this has to be put in context of the trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system. And I hope the gentlelady's amendment helps ease the pain of that legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, there is never a good time to enact a bad bill. Here we are again in the midst of a huge credit contraction. Every single day people are waking up, they're losing credit cards. Their interest rates are increasing. We have had at least 3.5 million of our fellow citizens lose their jobs since this

administration has taken office. We have the highest unemployment rate in a quarter of a century. And yet in the midst of this credit contraction, when people are having trouble expanding their business, creating jobs, paying their bills, we are going to enact legislation that simply is procyclical and makes the whole matter worse.

I heard the gentleman say we can't enact this retroactively. I would say, at least in the years I have been in the House, we have certainly tried. I suppose that might be the next amendment. Maybe we can make this retroactive to 1974 or some other fairly arbitrary date.

Again, this particular legislation has to be put in the context of the trillion-dollar legislation, the government takeover of our health care system, that this House is due to vote on, apparently, according to the Speaker, either Friday or Saturday. And I question each and every amendment.

Will our constituents be less able or more able to afford to pay for this $1.3 trillion government takeover of our health care system if we pass this amendment? My guess is that the gentleman from New York's amendment fails that test.

And so I would urge that we reject that amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I fear that this amendment is simply going to take a bad situation and make it worse. How will all of our constituents be able, again, to pay for this monstrosity of a government takeover of our health care system, one that will directly tax a number of our constituents? Page 297, section 501, imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase the government-approved health insurance; 2.5 percent.

Now, again, a number of our constituents use credit cards to help pay for their medical expenses, to pay for their groceries, to pay for everything else. And now a number of them are going to be subject to a 2.5 percent tax. How will this amendment help them?

New taxes on medical devices, a 2.5 percent excise tax, which many call the wheelchair tax, particularly I assume a number of seniors will be subject to this tax. I know a number of them rely upon credit cards. Will their credit cards ultimately be taken away from them under this legislation?

The underlying legislation takes away the ability, erodes the ability to do risk-based pricing and takes us back to an era where a third fewer people had access to credit cards and everybody paid annual fees and everybody paid one universal high interest rate.

The underlying legislation takes us down that road, and the gentleman from New York's amendment gets us there tomorrow. And then later in this week we're going to tell our constituents, Congratulations, we just passed a $1.3 trillion government takeover of your health care system that you have to pay for through new taxes on individuals, new taxes on medical devices, new taxes on small businesses, at a time where this Congress and this administration has brought us the first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history, tripling the national debt--tripling the national debt--in the next 10 years. The least you can do is at least allow your constituents to have a credit card to help pay for this mammoth takeover of our government health care system.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, there are aspects of the legislation I am not sure that I completely understand, and if the gentlelady from Ohio would be willing to explain her amendment, I will be happy to yield her time.

On line 9 of the amendment, it speaks of the notice of the imposition of a new fee, and I am curious whether a new fee, does that include increasing the amount of a fee that is already in existence?

I yield to the gentlelady for a clarification.

That it would, okay.

So an altogether new fee that had not previously been imposed, that would be included in the language and any increase in an existing fee would come within your definition of new fee, correct?

I yield to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for her explanation.

The next question I had, on line 14 there is the phrase ``to negatively impact.'' I am curious whether or not certain creditors feel they are getting accurate data, whether or not this could cause them to drop the consumer's credit card in total, but I suppose the language you use is to negatively impact the consumer's credit score or credit report. So if the impact of your amendment, because incomplete or inaccurate data was given by a credit bureau to a creditor and they chose instead not to take the risk, that the negative impact of losing their credit card, that is not assumed in your amendment?

I yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for her explanation. I fear for, frankly, a number of creditors it might just have that impact.

So again, I would oppose the underlying amendment because I think, again, under the purpose of attempting to help the consumer, you might actually hurt the consumer. And I think what we want is to make sure that creditors receive the most accurate information possible because it has helped allow more Americans to receive credit than otherwise would be possible.

Now I don't know, there may be some credit bureau out there who believe that people like me who wear red ties are a greater credit risk, I don't know, I am not an expert in it, and I feel quite certain that my colleagues are not experts on what constitutes a greater or lesser credit risk, and except for the prohibited classes of race, creed, and color which have been clearly delineated in our civil rights laws, why do we want to start dictating to credit bureaus about what constitutes a greater risk and what constitutes a lesser risk.

Again, it might make us feel better. It may have good optics; but at the end of the day, I fear the result is if you start restricting, if you go down the road of beginning to restrict the information that is available to creditors, with less information, they are either going to make credit less available or they are going to increase the cost of it because it becomes a greater risk.

Listen, on its face the gentlelady's amendment strikes me as fair; but I don't believe Congress has expertise in this. Again, when we are facing the imposition of a trillion dollar government takeover of our health care bill, I believe this will make credit less available and more costly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the chairman of the full committee, people who do it right shouldn't be penalized, and that is exactly what is happening in the underlying legislation.

This particular amendment is simply tantamount to a gag order to tell credit bureaus that they can't report accurate information that creditors want in order to give credit. It is going to take credit away, make it more expensive and less available as we try to finance the trillion dollar government takeover of health care.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

While I am somewhat unclear why this amendment was made in order, it seems to do precisely the opposite of what the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act was supposedly designed to do. This freezes prices. And yet we have had so many Members on the other side of the aisle tell us the bill doesn't do that.

I see that the chairman of the full committee has come back to the floor. Just in September, on September 23, the chairman was quoted as saying on the House floor, When it comes to rate setting, this bill, to the disappointment of some, doesn't limit future rates. As far as the future is concerned, if proper notice is given, this bill is not restricted.

Well, the adoption of this amendment would seem to fly in the face of that. The chairman, I assume, was correct when he said it. But if the House adopts this amendment, it will no longer be true.

The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), There is no limit in this bill on the interest rate that you can charge. None whatsoever. That was spoken on the House floor on April 29. Again, if the amendment is adopted, that will no longer be true.

This bill aims to bring back some balance in the playing field. Unlike other proposals out there, this bill does not set price controls or rate caps or limit the size of fees. That would be the gentlelady from New York who spoke those words in subcommittee in March of 2008. Again, if the underlying amendment is adopted, it seems to change the nature of the underlying bill.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Well, I thank the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act and ending 9 months after the date, no creditor may increase annual percentage rate fee finance charge. Again, under the subsection it appears again ``for at least a 9-month period.''

Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Well, reclaiming my time, I was still reading as I yielded to the chairman. So I can either read or I can yield to the chairman. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Well, reclaiming my time, then I would question the body on what particular purpose the amendment then serves.

At this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Well, one thing of interest, I suppose, is that if we adopt the earlier amendment of the gentleman from New York, this all becomes irrelevant anyway since the effective date would be immediate. So I believe that----

I have only 60 seconds, but yes, I will yield a short time to the chairman.

I thank the chairman for his clarification.

Again, I believe that ultimately this is an amendment that would simply impose price controls for a limited duration of time, contrary to what some of us were led to believe.

But again, the most important aspect of this legislation has to be put into the context of the $1 trillion government takeover of our health care plan to be voted on Friday or Saturday. This will make credit more expensive and less available. It should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many different reasons why the American people are opposing the ``Pelosi Government Takeover of Your Health Care'' bill: 111 different offices, bureaus, commissions, and programs to get between you and your doctor, preventing you from getting the health care you need when you need it; 3,425 uses of the word ``shall,'' to ensure that bureaucrats take away your choices and drive up your health care costs; $150 billion cut from the Medicare Advantage program, endangering seniors who rely upon the program.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me give you 1 trillion more reasons to oppose this plan: a minimum $1 trillion cost, on a country that is already going bankrupt. We have had our first $1 trillion deficit. Under President Obama, we will triple--triple--the national debt in just the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve a nation's health care by bankrupting it, its families, and its children. This must be rejected.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, when will the insanity stop, the runaway spending, the debts, the deficits? The American people are saying enough is enough.

Now we have a Department of the Interior and environment conference report that contains a 17 percent increase over last year's spending. I assure you the family budget that has to pay for this Federal budget, their budget didn't increase 17 percent. People want to know why is Federal spending out of control?

In addition, now we have a continuing resolution attached to this conference report. Why are we voting on it? We are voting on it because this Congress and this President have spent too much money, and now they want more.

Already this President and this Congress have passed a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan which, by the way, since it passed, over 3\1/ 2\ million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate in our Nation in a generation. That stimulus plan weighed in at $9,745 per household. I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, the American people didn't get their money's worth.

Next, this Congress and this President passed and signed into law an omnibus spending plan costing $410 billion, weighing in at $3,511 per household.

Then under this administration and Congress the bailouts continue: another $30 billion for AIG, almost $36 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $60 million for GM and Chrysler. Now the news today is the administration wants to hand GMAC another $12 billion.

What has it all brought us? The Nation's first trillion-dollar deficit, a spending plan that will triple the national debt in the next 10 years. On top of that, we have the announcement of the trillion- dollar government takeover of our health care.

How can you raise the cost and decrease the quality all at the same time? This Congress apparently has figured it out. Under this spending plan, the American people cannot afford it.

Madam Speaker, today I honor the memory of our fallen military heroes, recognize the sacrifice of their families and laud the excellent work of the Snowball Express Organization and its many partners, sponsors and volunteers.

Freedom is not free--it comes at an incredible cost. Throughout our nation's history, whenever our country is attacked or when the enemies of freedom threaten peace in our world, American men and women in uniform, from all backgrounds and all walks of life, have answered the call to defend our nation. From the American Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom, many of America's best and brightest have paid the price of our freedom with their lives.

The families of these brave men and women also make tremendous sacrifices. Military families play a vital support role to our troops in harm's way and are left to carry on life without their wife, husband, mother, father, brother or sister. As much as we remember the men and women who lay down their life to protect us, we should also remember and support their families and the incredible sacrifice they make on a daily basis, as they seek to continue on with their life, remembering and honoring their departed loved one. My son and daughter live in a better, more free and more secure America because of the sacrifices of these families and their heroes.

Snowball Express was founded with the goal of providing ``hope and new memories to the children of our fallen military heroes who died while on active duty since September 11, 2001.'' I can only imagine how hard it must be to carry on with holidays, birthdays and normal life with your loved one missing. The outstanding staff, partners, sponsors and volunteers at Snowball Express are committed to providing rays of sunshine for children whose worlds have been rocked by incredible loss and they are to be commended.

As Ronald Reagan said, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.'' Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am humbled and honored to recognize our nation's heroes, their families and Snowball Express.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we have a continuing resolution well hidden in a Legislative Branch conference report. Why are we voting on a continuing resolution, Madam Speaker? We are voting on a continuing resolution because this Congress and this President have spent too much money, and now they want more.

Already this President and this Congress have passed into law a $1.1 trillion stimulus plan which, by the way, since it was passed, we have had almost 3 million more join the unemployment ranks, the highest unemployment rate in almost a quarter of a century. But that stimulus plan weighed in at $9,746 per household.

Next this Congress and this President signed into law, passed into law an omnibus costing $410 billion, $3,511 per household.

The bailouts continue. Madam Speaker, another $30 billion for AIG, almost $30 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention $60 billion for GM and Chrysler. The serial bailouts continue.

What has all this spending brought us, Madam Speaker? It has brought us the Nation's first, first trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit that increased 10 fold, 10 fold, in just 2 years.

On top of this now the President and the Congress want a $3.6 trillion budget and a trillion-dollar nationalized health care plan that we cannot afford, meaning that the national debt will triple, triple in the next 10 years.

Madam Speaker, under this spending plan, we are borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children. If the spending, if the borrowing, if the deficits do not stop, this will be a Congress that will ensure that it's just a matter of time before the Chinese initiate foreclosure proceedings on our Nation.

We cannot let that stand.

Madam Speaker, today I recognize a valued member of our community, Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake, and join with them in celebrating their 50th anniversary.

In 1959, Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake was established with a mission to provide quality health care to the East Dallas, Garland, Mesquite. Five decades later, this full-service hospital continues to pursue its mission by providing outstanding care ranging from obstetrics to acute care for the elderly.

Located in East Dallas, Doctors Hospital's outpatient facilities include a wound/vein center, sleep center, women's imaging center and rehabilitation center. I recently had the privilege of touring their new surgical suites, which will provide a comfortable place for family members to stay while their loved one receives the care they need.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake's 50th anniversary, and I commend the Board of Directors, physicians, nurses and staff for helping to provide quality health care to our community.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Budget Committee and House Financial Services Committee, one of my top priorities is to get the job engine running again in America. Over the past year, Congress has spent over $1 trillion to get the economy moving again, but 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Obama took office and we have the highest unemployment rate in 25 years. Clearly, Washington Democrats' plan for economic recovery has been an abject failure.

I support policies that will provide struggling Texas small businesses with tax relief, enabling small businesses, which create 2 of every 3 jobs in America, to begin hiring workers. But we also must ensure that those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own have a temporary safety net to help them weather this economic storm. That is why I voted for H.R. 6867 on October 3, 2008. H.R. 6867 provides up to 59 weeks of unemployment compensation benefits, and I was pleased that it was signed into law on November 21, 2008.

The House recently considered H.R. 3357, which transferred $7 billion from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund to cover a projected shortfall of funds. This legislation also would provide funds for the Unemployment Trust Fund.

I support those provisions that would ensure the Unemployment Trust Fund, which is the funding mechanism for federal unemployment compensation benefits, has the resources it needs. In these tough economic times, I know how important unemployment benefits are to those who have lost their job. I do not, however, support provisions of H.R. 3357 that would transfer $7 billion from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund, as this would add $7 billion to the deficit and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. While I support a first-class highway system and would not want to see the Highway Trust Fund run short of funds, simply adding $7 billion to the deficit was not the solution to the Highway Trust Fund's problems. This $7 billion is on top of an $8 billion transfer in 2008 and the $27 billion provided to the Highway Trust Fund in the so-called stimulus bill.

Unfortunately, Members of Congress have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on transportation earmarks over the last decade, helping lead to the depletion of the fund. While not all earmarks are bad, too many have diverted funds from the fund to pay for the Bridge to Nowhere, parking garages and bike paths. Had Members of Congress spent Highway Trust Fund money more wisely, we may not have been forced to replenish the fund.

Even though I support the Unemployment Trust Fund provision of H.R. 3357, at a time when the federal government is running a record debt in excess of $11 trillion, a projected record deficit of $1.8 trillion, and a 9.5 percent unemployment rate that is the highest unemployment rate in over 25 years, I simply could not support a bill that would borrow $7 billion and send the bill to future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There are aspects of this legislation that I certainly appreciate. All Americans have been outraged--it is a word we use frequently, and we use justifiably--about some of the compensation packages we have seen from failed companies that come with tin cup in hand to the United States taxpayer looking for more.

This bill has some provisions that add increased transparency, some increased accountability; and that is good. But, unfortunately, the bad in the bill way outshadows the good.

I have always said, Mr. Speaker, what you do with your money is your business. What you do with the taxpayer money is our business.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, you can't just read the bumper sticker slogan. You actually have to read the legislation. So we hear speech after speech about these failed institutions taking in all of this government money.

Well, I wonder then why in committee on a party-line vote did we vote down an amendment that I brought that would have ensured that the bailout recipients, that this legislation applied to them and them only. They are the poster children in this debate, yet the legislation extends potentially to every public company in America that somehow is defined as a ``covered financial institution.''

By the way, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the best way to deal with risky pay schemes is to quit bailing them out in the first place. My friends on the other side of the aisle are enshrining us as a bailout Nation. So you complain about the taxpayers picking up the tab. I have complained about the taxpayers picking up the tab. Quit bailing them out in the first place.

Again, we have to read the bill and not just read the slogan, because if you read the bill, what you find out is,

number one, this isn't just pay restrictions that go to those in the troubled Wall Street firms. Again, it is almost every covered financial institution. And guess what? If you read further into the bill, it doesn't just cover the top officers, the top executives. Every single employee, every single employee who has an ``incentive-based compensation plan'' could be covered by this.

We have already learned that somehow, with a very interpretive approach to the English language, General Motors and Chrysler have been found to be financial institutions. This means that any employee, any employee who receives a tip, a sales commission, a Christmas bonus, could have a Federal bureaucrat take it away from them. Ho ho ho.

That is what this legislation is all about. Again, don't get sucked in by the bumper sticker slogan. Read the legislation. That was the problem here on the original bailout. Nobody read the legislation. The government stimulus, nobody read the legislation. Well, fortunately, this isn't a 1,000-page bill. I think it is about 15 or 20 pages. I actually took the time to read it.

And if this is just about class warfare, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't this do anything about Hollywood stars who make $25 million for a movie, and yet the movie loses money? Why isn't it about a third baseman for the New York Yankees who gets $21 million and ties his worst record for striking out in the season? Why doesn't this have anything to do with the personal injury trial lawyers who make millions and millions, and their clients are doing good to make thousands?

So I hear the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, which once again seems like a lot of recycled class warfare to me.

Another point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is we hear that we need this in order to somehow deal with safety and soundness. We need this legislation to somehow deal with systemic risk.

Well, number one, I listened very carefully to the testimony that was presented in our committee, and I am sure it is theoretically possible that there are pay structures that somehow may lend themselves to this. But, again, show me the evidence. Where is the evidence? When I look at pay structures among financial firms that failed versus those that didn't fail, I don't see the correlation.

Second of all, as we know, Mr. Speaker, the regulators have the power to regulate the liquidity and capital standards of these financial firms to make it commensurate with the risk. That is the remedy. That is the remedy, not to take Christmas bonuses away from employees.

Mr. Speaker, to quote the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he was wrong then, he is wrong now to say that Republicans have no program to deal with excessive risk and compensation packages. Yes, we do have a program: end the bailouts. End the TARP program. If you quit bailing out risky behavior, Mr. Speaker, you receive less risky behavior.

Second of all, the gentleman is also wrong as far as the Republicans having no program otherwise we wouldn't have this substitute that we are debating at the moment. I also heard the gentleman from North Carolina earlier say, Well, we need to have the underlying legislation because shareholders have no right to have a say-on-pay. Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. Shareholders have the right. They can have a say-on-pay by electing directors who will fire the management. They have a say to invest elsewhere.

Their bill says we have to have mandatory say-on-pay. Now, we can debate the merits of it, but the gentleman from North Carolina was simply, clearly wrong.

I also want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when I listen to, again, the logic that we have to have a new Federal regulation that somehow will regulate risky incentive pay structures, again, all of the rhetoric has to do with Wall Street. But guess what? Read the bill. Look at the interpretation.

Financial institutions. Chrysler and GM have been found to be financial institutions. We have had testimony when they came looking for the taxpayer bailout that the UAW, the United Auto Workers, had a pay structure that was 40 percent higher than their competitors.

So now we have a law here that will allow Federal regulators, I assume, to come in and say, Folks at the UAW, your incentive structure is contributing to the demise of Chrysler and GM. So we're going to have to come down and take down your wage rates.

Read the bill, Mr. Speaker. This isn't restricted to the top executives. And if anybody believes this is restricted to Wall Street, then why did Chrysler and why did GM get coverage under a statute that described institutions?

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a Federal Government that is now taking over our auto companies, telling us what kind of automobiles we can drive. They're taking over our mortgage companies, telling us whether or not we can even enjoy a mortgage. They now want to control access to our family doctor, and now they want to decide for millions and millions of Americans whether or not they can ever receive a sales commission or a Christmas bonus that they may view as too risky.

What is risky is too much politization of our economy. What is risky is too much government control of our economy. We have had enough.

Cash for Clunkers, Mr. Speaker, obviously it's a popular program. It's a clever title. It pays people several thousand dollars to trade in their old cars if they will buy new cars. And yes, Mr. Speaker, people are hurting in the auto industry. There's no doubt about it. But I would also note that the taxpayers are hurting. $80 billion to Chrysler and GM. And the auto industry does not have a monopoly on hard times in this economy.

Recently, one of the largest poultry producers in America, Pilgrims Pride, just a few miles outside of my congressional district, they had to declare Chapter 11. Maybe we should have a Cash for Cluckers program and pay people to eat chicken. Then after that, we can have a program to pay people to buy TVs, and then a program to pay people to buy lumber. It would pass the test. It has a clever title. It would help a large industry. It would put free money in the hands of consumers.

But this is not a humorous affair, Mr. Speaker, and it's not humorous because this is an extension of a program that has the government picking winners and losers. Why is the auto industry the winner? Why is the poultry industry the loser? This is one more step in enshrining us as a bailout Nation.

Now, people say, Well, it's $2 billion that's coming out of the stimulus program. Well, I would tell my distinguished colleagues that that is still $2 billion that has to be borrowed from the Chinese, with the bill sent to our children and grandchildren, at a time when the deficit has hit $1 trillion for the first time in history. You cannot bail out, borrow and spend your way into economic prosperity. Instead, let's unleash the spirit of entrepreneurial capitalism. Let's help small businesses with tax relief. Let's grow our way out of this economic recession.